[EL] Starbucks & NoDough

[Sean Parnell]

Mr. Schultz's actions raise an interesting parallel, at least in terms of
how some people felt about Charles and David Koch's communications with
their employees when it comes to voting. From an April 2011 story in The
Nation titled Big Brothers: thought control at Koch
<http://www.thenation.com/article/160062/big-brothers-thought-control-koch>
. A few of the more entertaining passages:

 

On the eve of the November midterm elections, Koch Industries sent an urgent
letter to most of its 50,000 employees advising them on whom to vote for and
warning them about the dire consequences to their families, their jobs and
their country should they choose to vote otherwise..

Legal experts interviewed for this story called the blatant corporate
politicking highly unusual.

"Before Citizens United, federal election law allowed a company like Koch
Industries to talk to officers and shareholders about whom to vote for, but
not to talk with employees about whom to vote for," explains Paul M.
Secunda, associate professor of law at Marquette University. But according
to Secunda, who recently wrote in The Yale Law Journal Online about the
effects of Citizens United on political coercion in the workplace, the
decision knocked down those regulations. "Now, companies like Koch
Industries are free to send out newsletters persuading their employees how
to vote. They can even intimidate their employees into voting for their
candidates." Secunda adds, "It's a very troubling situation."

.After guiding employees on how they should vote, the mailer devoted the
rest of the material to the sort of indoctrination one would expect from an
old John Birch Society pamphlet. 

Legal experts say that this kind of corporate-sponsored propagandizing has
been almost unheard-of in America since the passage of New Deal-era laws
like the National Labor Relations Act.

I wonder, will the folks at The Nation and elsewhere who were so upset with
an employer urging employers to take a certain political action without
having the ability to monitor, enforce, or determine whether employees
followed their recommendation, be similarly upset with another corporate
leader urging employees to take a certain political action (or rather,
refrain from taking a certain political action), perhaps even more upset
given that this particular employer has some ability to monitor whether
employees complied with their employer's wishes? Should we expect to see an
article in The Nation gravely warning of the dangers of allowing a Howard
Schultz to use his position as corporate leader to engage in "thought
control" over the political actions of employees and intimidating employees?

 

File this question under 'Breath, Not Holding.'

 

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

124 S. West Street, #201

Alexandria, VA  22314

(703) 894-6800 phone

(703) 894-6813 direct

(703) 894-6811 fax

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Peter
Overby
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:39 PM
To: 'David A. Holtzman'; [EL]
Subject: Re: [EL] Starbucks & NoDough

 

Wouldn't it be the same leverage for giving to a certain candidate or not
giving to any candidate? 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David A.
Holtzman
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:36 PM
To: [EL]
Subject: [EL] Starbucks & NoDough

Starbucks' chief wants people to refrain from giving to federal campaigns
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/opinion/nocera-boycott-campaign-donations
.html> , as a way to make politicians shape up.

What leverage might he have over his employees to push compliance with a
NoDough boycott?

When you donate to a federal campaign, you fill in your employer on the
form.  Could the head of Starbucks search for "Starbucks" in donation
records and penalize the employee-donors in any way?  If he has their
pictures (say, from ID badges), could he put up posters of shame in
Starbucks stores?  In backrooms? In public areas?  Could he require stores
to hand out lists of offenders and their home addresses (from their
contribution disclosure forms)?  [Or, could somebody else hand out such
lists outside Starbucks stores?]  Does it matter that the NoDough movement
is not a campaign for or against any candidate?

How powerful could a NoDough movement be?

  - David A. Holtzman





-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com 

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110815/f0297a8f/attachment.html>